Brent Turman, Partner and Trial Attorney with Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP in Dallas, joins Steve Wood, Ph.D. on the podcast to talk about the hit series Suits and ethical issues that surface on the show. Brent gives an overview of an ethics CLE he presents referencing episodes of the show. Steve and Brent discuss how issues that occur in different episodes can inform the appropriate approach to litigation including mock trials, witnesses, ethical questions, competing loyalties, depositions, and more.
Full Episode Transcript
[00:14] Steve Welcome to the Litigation Psychology Podcast brought to you by Courtroom Sciences. Dr. Steve Wood joining me today is Brent Turman. Brent is from Bell Nunnally in Dallas. Brent, how are you doing?
[00:27] Brent Great, Steve. It’s good to see you again.
[00:28] Steve I know, was to say good to see you man. I’m—this is—this is now number three. You are joining a very elite class of uh, guests who have come on multiple.
[00:35] Brent Let’s make the third the best. Let’s go.
[00:37] Steve No, and—and the reason why I bring you on is because it’s always fun to talk to you because you always bring a different kind of bent to the discussion because obviously we’ve talked with you before about a lot of stuff that’s come up in the entertainment industry and a lot of your stuff focuses on that or music when we did with Kanye West. So, I think you bring an interesting tactic or an interesting bent to the topic. So today what we want to talk about, um, by the time this episode airs, the new episode should likely be out for Suits L.A., but we’re going to go backwards a little bit and we’re going to talk about the original Suits. I know you’re doing a CLE on that topic, and I want to give you some time to talk about kind of what your CLE is about, but then dive more into a lot of the things that goes on in Suits that maybe people don’t necessarily recognize.
[01:26] Brent Yeah, so thank you, Steve. So I am—I’m on my virtual roadshow right now for presentations for something called Ethics Lessons from Suits. And I originally wanted to do this, um, this whole presentation, man, like seven or eight years ago, but it was just this stale show that I love but wasn’t popular. And then because of Netflix and streaming and the pandemic, it just blew up again, uh, in 2023 it was actually number—no, it’s number one. Number one in minutes. And right behind it I remember was Bluey, the show with the Aussie dog that my kids love and my wife cries when she watches. But, um, with it, it is a—a really interesting show, and I found lawyers either love it or hate it because of the main character, Mike Ross. And you learned a lot about him recently, right?
[02:11] Steve Yeah, well, we’ll definitely get into that. And I will admit too is I was one of those, and when you and I would talked about doing this, I was like, well, I guess I better start going back and starting watching Suits cuz that was something I hadn’t watched either. And I had heard a lot of people talk about what a great show it was, I just never had an opportunity to get into it. And then when I got into it, I was just binging it episode after episode after episode.
[02:31] Brent Well, let’s get into it just in case someone hasn’t seen it.
[02:33] Steve Yeah, for sure. Why don’t you give us the lay of the land, the main characters, kind of what you want to touch on to give us the backstory, just to kind of give everyone a general idea?
[02:40] Brent Yeah, the first thing is, I mean, you learn in season one, episode one, there’s this character named Mike Ross who never went to law school but he’s like a brilliant mind. He has a photographic memory and if he reads anything once, he digests it, understands it forever. And because of this, he’s had some rough times in life and needs to make money. One way he does that is taking the LSAT for people who aren’t good at test-taking, and he gets amazing scores for them. Or sometimes he’s actually smart enough to not get the perfect scores, right? Because that’s just not realistic. Because of some mishaps here in episode one, he finds himself hiding from the police and he goes into a room where he’s interviewing—not on purpose—because and then he starts interviewing for a job at a law firm for Harvey Specter. And he is like—he’s like a Cary Grant type figure for anyone who watches the old, you know, the black and white movies on Turner Classic and all that. He’s a—he’s a guy who men want to be and women want. He is the guy who has it. I think they call him the—the best closer in the city in New York City. And he hires him. He has this interview and actually ends up hiring Mike despite the fact that he has never taken the LSAT for himself, has never passed the bar, has never gone to any law school. And so of course like, again, this is just a fun ethics presentation, we talk about how that is clearly unauthorized practice of the law, right? And he knows it, everyone knows it.
[04:05] Steve Yeah, which is a big sticking point, right? You had mentioned that when this comes up in presentations that a lot of times attorneys don’t get into it because of this whole idea that Mike is practicing law without a law license.
[04:16] Brent Exactly. And so the Q&A and discussion people after these presentations, that is the most polarizing issue of this whole show is people who are practicing attorneys, a good chunk of them just can’t suspend their disbelief beyond that point and they just, you know, season one, episode one, I’m out, not for me. Um, but if—if you like the—the banter between him and Harvey and all the other things that go on, you can love it, right? And—and so with it, there’s a ton of other characters, a lot of politics, um, working within the law firm, going against opposing counsel, and a lot of things that, um, you know, are familiar to us in the practice. Maybe a little—little more extreme, little more dramatic on Suits though.
[04:57] Steve Yeah, I mean that’s like, you know, when you talk to doctors and stuff too, they don’t watch ER and all those other ones. Why? Because it’s a little bit more dramatic than real life. But if it was as boring and bland as it really is, then nobody would watch it.
So let’s get into a little bit then the—the topics that you bring up because I know you and I have talked about it and I know you talk about it in your CLE. But what are some of the things that you topics you hit on and then how does that kind of tie into the show and what does that lead to in real life?
[05:22] Brent Yeah, and some of them are trial skills and some of them are ethical points. Again, I always want to make sure to have entertaining ethics presentations, which I know is sounds like something that doesn’t exist.
[05:32] Steve Yeah.
[05:33] Brent So we’ll check the boxes where we need to, but also some trial skills and things that—that help. And—and one example for me is there is a situation—there’s a couple things from this we can talk about—but they have a mock trial they have all their first-year attorneys do at this law firm, this fictional law firm in the show. And, uh, Mike Ross is prepping and he’s got his girlfriend at the time there and he’s sitting there and he says, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” and all these things with this tone that just isn’t him. Um, and he’s—he’s acting like, you know, he thinks a TV lawyer’s supposed to act. And that really hit me hard because that’s kind of how, if I did well enough on the LSAT, I was able—I was asked to teach at Kaplan Test Prep and teach the LSAT. And I kind of feel bad for some of the students in my first go around because I talk like that. And like the character in the show says, she’s like, “Why are you talking like that? You have—sound like you have a stick up your butt.” She said something else, but, um, it’s—it’s one of those things where you don’t just need to emulate what you think you need to be. It’s so important to be genuine and to be yourself. And I’m sure you and I’ve talked about this before, I know you talked about this on a bunch of episodes. It is important to be yourself in front of a judge, in front of a jury, in front of an arbitrator. Now think about it: you’re in front of a jury for at the very minimum hours, but probably days, it could even be weeks. And they can smell a fraud, they can smell a fake, right? It is so important for you to be you because that is the most effective version of an advocate you can be for your client. And so that’s something that really just hit me when I was watching it personally, uh, in one of the early episodes.
[07:02] Steve Yeah, and I think another one of those early episodes that hit me as far as authenticity was that one where they had the plant manager who they wanted to essentially interview and become the new CEO of the—the auto engine manufacturers. And they were going in there and they were trying to talk to him and prep him for that talk in his interview as the CEO to kind of take over. And he got pissed at one point cuz he was like, “All these things, I would never say. This isn’t how I would actually say it,” you know? And Mike steps in and kind of says, “Well, how would you say it? Why don’t you put it in your words?” And when he was able to do that, he became a lot more comfortable in what he was saying. And I think that also goes back to when we work with witnesses, it’s the same thing. If we’re telling a witness how to answer questions, now they’re too worried thinking, “How does Steve want me to answer? How does the attorney want me to answer it?” And then they just sound unnatural and they just can’t get over that cognitive block. But if you get them to the point say, “Hey, I don’t care how you say it, say it how you’re going to say it,” and it’s like a light bulb goes off for them and they become a lot more comfortable in how they’re answering questions now because they don’t have to feel like they’re being someone who they’re not.
[08:05] Brent Exactly. It’s so important for witness to know—script, it’s not “you say this thing verbatim.” I mean, it’s—it’s you telling your story and the substance of your story in the way that you want to. And it’s not just when they’re on the stand or deposition, right? I mean, think about when—when let’s be real—lawyers are drafting declarations and affidavits. It doesn’t always have need to sound like a lawyer drafted it, right? It could—if it’s—if you got someone who works out in an oil field, you probably shouldn’t be using Latin phrases and legalese in the affidavit you want them to sign, right?
[08:35] Steve Yeah, and I think that’s another thing too is, you know, for me when you think about it is I’m always a big strong proponent of not always necessarily having to sound like the smartest person in the room, right? Too often we feel like, “Well, I have to be the smartest person, everybody’s looking to me.” But to the lay juror, to the lay witness, they don’t want that. They want more of the everyman or the everywoman that they can connect with. And I think sometimes that can become a hurdle for some people cuz they have to feel like they have to stay in attorney mode at all times. And if they don’t, then somehow they’re going to be looked at differently.
[09:03] Brent And we’ve talked about this case before, the 50 Shades of Grey case I had, um, over a decade ago in Tarrant County in Fort Worth, Texas. And I—I—I—I tell the story a lot because it really kind of shaped the way I practice. I had an attorney named Mike Ferris who I learned under and he said, “Brent, I want to work on this, you know, original petition with you and first draft. I want it to be clean, straightforward, no legalese. Don’t over-complicate it because I want somebody who is not a lawyer—a journalist—to be able to read this once, have no questions, and be able to write about it on the front page of the paper.” And—and so it’s—it’s important to know who your audience is, but also you don’t have to do things in an over-complicated way. Um, just you don’t have to do things like that to make up for whatever your billable hour rate is, right? You don’t need to do that to prove it. You can still communicate in a more informal but appropriate fashion.
[09:53] Steve Yeah, so let’s talk about, uh, another thing that came up once again kind of in from a ethics standpoint, um, just kind of the things that come up on the show as far as backstabbing and loyalty and having to make tough decisions and then trying to decide who—who—who’s the type of person that I want to be or who—who’s the type of person I want to become?
[10:12] Brent Yeah, so with it, I mean, you can imagine anyone who’s practiced at a firm, you could—there’s a lot of different personalities and I’ve—I’ve got faces popping up in my mind. I will not list the names, right? But for example, in the show, Harvey is—I mean, he’s the breadwinner, he’s the rainmaker. He goes out there and he also closes deals. He’s smooth and he’s charismatic. A lot of people can’t be that person, right? One person who cannot be that person is Louis Litt. And he is someone who, um, is hilarious in the show. If—if you watch it enough, you’ll like him. You’re not—you’re not supposed to like him at the beginning. But he rules over the associates with an iron fist, but he also somebody who bills more hours than everyone else, is smarter than most the other attorneys, but doesn’t get the credit that Harvey gets. And so, I’m not saying all firms are both alike, but there are different reward systems for having different skill sets, right? And on top of it, there are some people in the show who will backstab someone else just to get ahead. And you can see—excuse me—how damaging that can be for that person, for that firm, for that practice group as well. Um, but there’s so many different styles and what I—I love is being exposed—what—what I love about my firm Bell Nunnally when I—when I learned, you know, developing here is in litigation section, we’re kind of like free agents and we get to work for a lot of different attorneys. We’re not just glued to the hip with one partner like Mike Ross is with Harvey for the most part. And you get to see different approaches and see what you like, see things that maybe that could work great for him or her but just doesn’t work for me. And you can just take what you like, let go the rest, and it’s—it’s—it’s an amazing experience to get to have all that different exposure to different approaches.
[11:53] Steve You know, and you don’t have to name names or do anything, but just from your experience—
[11:58] Brent I won’t. I won’t. I like having my job here.
[12:03] Steve But I guess though, in even just in passing without even naming names, I mean, though that whole idea, you know, at one point Mike does do some—some work with—with Louis and then all of a sudden now he has to like split loyalties and split time, um, and—and potentially make decisions, you know, that might counter—
[12:21] Brent Steve, I don’t know if you knew this, but a lot of lawyers have big egos too, and that can come into play.
[12:24] Steve Yeah, it’s breaking news, right?
[12:26] Brent Yeah.
[12:28] Steve So I guess the hottest, you know—and this really can kind of spin off a little bit from what we’re talking about as Suits—but just kind of giving some thoughts from your experience and maybe for some younger attorneys and when they get put in that position like Mike gets put into a position in an episode. Like, how do you handle that or what are your thoughts on handling that when you have kind of competing loyalties where you’re working for multiple people, you’re seeing different things and maybe you’re getting pulled in one direction in another direction and you’re having to make tough decisions? How do you navigate that area?
[12:54] Brent Yeah, so to be clear this is not me talking about my current firm. I just want—
[12:57] Steve Correct. Let’s—
[12:59] Brent Sometimes when you’re lower down the ladder, the solution is you just have to work more and get it all done. Um, not everything’s going to work on your deadline. Uh, but over—not over-communicating, make sure you’re efficiently and effectively communicating with people to stay on top of things. You know, if you’re working for a partner who’s reasonable, you can move around and shift around deadlines and get everything done. On top of that, it’s important I’ve found, um, for partners to feel like their work is important to the associates. And so, it could be as easy as making sure that is communicated or the—the associate seems excited about that partner’s work. Notice I said seems excited. We’re not going to be excited about every single thing we touch, but we need to be, you know, optimistic about looking out to protect that client, to doing good work for the partner. I’m giving you lots of—lots of vague things here. Well, but also, I mean, if someone wants to talk smack about another partner, it might not be a good idea to join in on things like that. I mean, you—so many times in Suits this happens, right? Someone says something bad about someone else, and it gets back to them. Again, it’s common sense, but as a young impressionable associate, it could be tempting, right? To feel—to like you’re ingratiating with someone else by talking smack about someone else.
[14:18] Steve Yeah. No, good—a good point. So, let’s get back to Suits and off of the not talking about any of your prior employers. Um, but you know, one of the other things I think was—was important and I think is good to talk about that you and I discussed was cross-exam. And I’ll let you tee up kind of where that came from in the episode and how that kind of ties into your thoughts behind that.
[14:39] Brent First off, the depositions in this show, if you are a litigator, are absolutely hilarious. Yeah, um, you’ll see they’ll come up with a little bitty fold-up handicam like I would have my broadcast journalism class back in my little small Texas town. You’ll see uh, multiple attorneys be there and they’ll do like popcorn questions, like associate ask a question, partner ask a question, this—and it’s just so unrealistic but funny. Now with that, one thing that’s a very important lesson is—and it’s tough too, because you have different personalities—but some people want you to crush the other side. Um, you know, just because like, we are going to make them feel pain. And to be clear, there is a time to make the other side feel pain, but you can’t lose sight of the bigger picture. Um, something that I mean, I think probably I wrestle with—I wrestled with a couple weeks ago to deposition. I really wanted to ask one or two more questions after I got this—I had this beautiful line of question answer, I really wanted to go a little bit further, right? Turn that triple into a home run. You got to fight back there, right? There is a huge danger in asking one too many questions. And a lot of times it’s going to start with something like, “So you’re telling me that blah blah blah blah blah” or something—something like that, right? You can feel it when it comes on. But that is the biggest urge that I constantly fight with, um, internally to make myself remind myself: don’t push it too far because you will give that opponent or that witness a chance to undo all the harm that you just caused them.
[16:13] Steve Yeah, you know, in that scene in the—in the show where Mike is cross-examining Rachel, who is his love interest in the show, uh, you know, in it he starts to break her, right? And then he kind of pulls back and then he goes over and he’s talking to who’s playing and the mock plaintiff attorney. And the mock plaintiff attorney, who’s one of the other younger associates, basically says, “Don’t stop, I want you to break her,” um, his own witness, but it was for the mock portion of it. And—and Mike chooses not to do it, you know? And I think what was interesting on that is, one, he knew kind of when to stop, he had gotten his point. But other thing I found actually interesting too is, and maybe you can talk a little bit about this, is that Jessica, who’s the head partner of the—of the firm, basically calls Mike weak for stopping his attack.
[16:59] Brent Yeah, and it’s—it’s all going to be extremely subjective, right? For different people. Excuse me. But now with that, that doesn’t make you weak if you’re smart, right? There—there is a—an actual way to be strategic about this. And some of the danger too of just going around and being a bull in the China shop and causing as much harm as possible is the jury can perceive you to be the bad guy. And think about it too. A lot of times these video—these depositions are videotaped. Sometimes I have chosen to play videotapes at state court in Texas cases when I have a live witness on the other side there, because I love how much of a just a mean, terrible person the other attorney sounded like at the deposition. And you can use that to your advantage. And so again, I mean, this is all—it’s all a performance, right? This whole thing we do, there’s so much skill and, um, that goes into it. But we have to think, this is a performance as well. And it is so important not only how your client is perceived but how you are perceived. And again, there are times when you need to amplify things, when you need—there have times where I have calmly, without raising my voice, got in the other side to jump up out of the chair at deposition and curse out my client, spitting across a table red-faced. There are times to use that to your advantage, but not always. Again, it’s just with litigation, it’s not a one-fits-all.
[18:30] Steve Yeah, that makes me think of a case I worked on where we had worked with the witness and that trial, you know, plaintiff counsel was just going at him and—and going and going and going and going. And he kept his cool, he kept his composure. And of course he got frustrated after the fact, but kept his composure in front of the jury. Um, and afterwards talking to the jury, the jury really didn’t like that attorney because because of that, he seemed like a bully. And they were reading off of the fact that here’s this guy up there trying to give testimony, he’s calm, cool, and collected, and here you are berating him. Um, to your point, you think you’re scoring points, but what you’re doing is irritating the jury.
[19:05] Brent Well, and you get it too. I mean, frankly, if a jury likes me more than the other attorney, it’s only going to help my client.
[19:11] Steve Yeah.
[19:12] Brent Right? On the flip side, if they think I’m a bully, bad person, that’s not gonna help my client.
[19:17] Steve Absolutely. All right, Brent. So, what else you want to talk about? What else comes up for you, uh, in Suits that you think is relevant and that you discuss in your CLE?
[19:27] Brent You say one more time? Steve, you kind of cut out on my end.
[19:28] Steve That’s all right. Uh, what—what other—what other topics do you want to talk about that you’ve seen from the show Suits and that kind of resonate with you from an attorney’s perspective?
[19:36] Brent Yes, and so there’s, um, I don’t remember exact and—oh, I know what it was. There’s a case where Harvey and his firm represented a client in the financial industries and they had an insider trading scheme. And they actually set up to where one of the lower-level employees would have made a trade based on insider knowledge without knowing it, and then she was the fall girl when things went wrong. Well, Harvey was investigating as they’re preparing for this trial and he learned that one of the executives at that company said orchestrated this whole deal, right? He orchestrated this insider trading ring and benefited from it, and so there are multiple executives meeting, and and Harvey is bringing this up. And the, uh, executive who did—the wrongdoer—had a bunch of four-letter words to say. He was very upset about this. He’s like, “Harvey, you can’t do this. I’ve been working with you for years and you’re my client. You do what I tell you to do.” And Harvey goes, “No, no, no, no, no.” And says the company name. “This company, that’s my client. You just work for them. You are not the client, and your interests are adverse, and therefore I have to take the client’s side.”
And these are the things that we learn in law school, and they’re common sense, but it’s interesting these things actually do play out in real life. And it’s so important, especially—this is not something for for lawyers need to do differently—but when you have a client who is new to working with lawyers, a client who is a startup for example, and your point of contact is the C-level person. Um, GC will probably get it right, but someone C-level, president, founder… it’s important at the very beginning, of course in your engagement letter, but also to make sure they know if something like this happens and if you’re interests are adverse to the company’s, I have the company’s back, not yours. And again, it’s common sense, but let’s talk about it at the front end before it’s actually a situation that is—could could be so awkward, right? You can ruin relationships um if that happens and they feel blindsided by you, their lawyer.
[21:32] Steve Yeah, no, that—that’s definitely a good point, that sometimes you get that push-pull and then you have to ultimately remember who—who the main client is. And sometimes you have to have difficult conversations, but at the end of the day, your main interest is to the client.
[21:46] Brent You know—you know who your client is. That’s the issue right there. It’s not—it’s not that person. It’s not Mr. Director, Mr. President.
[21:53] Steve Yeah, you know, and I want to talk about one other thing before I—before I let you get out of here.
You know, when we’re talking about ethics and one of the things that comes up, like I said, multiple times on the show Suits, is that kind of who I want to be, you know? And who—who I think I should be and who I want to be. I think that’s another thing too, probably, that you know, long—younger attorneys, early—early in their careers, are trying to kind of find their space about: do they want to be more like a Louis or they want to be more like a Mike? And is there a good and bad and otherwise? But just how to help navigate that kind of ethics and the decisions that…
[22:24] Brent First I have a question for you. Who do you want to be like from the show?
[22:27] Steve I personally… I—I like Harvey, obviously, because like you said, every man wants to be like him.
Yeah, yeah. No, he’s—he’s really good, but at the same time, I think personally I’m more—I fall more in line with Mike, um, where—where I wouldn’t crush the—the witness and—and I would probably make the tough decision that was more ethical. But that’s just me.
[22:46] Brent It’s because you’re a good person, Steve.
[22:47] Steve I try to be, right? Yeah.
[22:50] Brent With this, um, one thing I tell a lot of younger lawyers um that was told to me—and again, to be clear, nothing I’m saying is about this firm I work at, um, I worked at other firms before this—but with this, it’s important to know that once you pass the bar, you need to protect your bar card. Um, there’s a big issue in this case where—not in this case, in Suits—where basically younger associates do things that are objectively wrong and they just do them because their superior told them to do them. Uh, that doesn’t get you off the hook, right? That’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. So, it’s important to always protect your bar card.
At the same time, um, as a superior attorney, you should have that same respect, right? You shouldn’t be asking a subordinate or an associate to be doing things like that because you can be on the hook too under the ethical rules. But again, it’s—it’s important to… this is not ethics at all, but just to soak in as much as you can and and really get all the different experiences you can, especially as a younger associate. Especially if you’re at a firm where you get the opportunity to be exposed to different styles, different practices, different even types of law—for me, different types of litigation—and you can just find what feels right for you.
And I found that that leads to more fulfillment as well. I mean, I’ve tried enough cases and had enough experience with other attorneys to where I know how I want a case to work. I now know how I want um the vibe of my team to be. And again, that’s not—that’s not tangible at all, but with it, I want to create an environment that’s open to people, no matter if it’s a first or second year associate, to have their—their input valued. I’m not going to just go along and do everything you—you suggest, right? But it’s important to have those kind of things and so you can foster kind of the community and the, uh, culture that you want to have on your team. But also see the tactics. I have definitely borrowed some lines of questioning from attorneys who have led me along the way, and I pull them out of my back pocket whenever—whenever I need to because I know how effective they can be.
[24:50] Steve Yeah, no. And you said something actually I think that’s really important too is when you talk about this kind of sense of community and bringing people in, whether it’s a first year and second year. I think that you don’t necessarily see even in Suits either, where it’s kind of like, “You’re the first year associate, shut up, go sit in the corner.” Um, but making sure that you hire the right people and then you’re creating kind of an environment that makes people feel like they’re a part of a team, which I think leads into the ethics too. Is when everybody kind of trusts everybody, you don’t necessarily have to worry about somebody backstabbing you. But if you create that environment of suspicion and whether or not you’re worried about what person’s ulterior motives are, then it just creates a negative environment too, right?
[25:30] Brent Yeah, and you can think about all the suspicion in the show. I don’t know how much you’ve seen, but it’s just madness with all the backstabbing and the power plays, yeah, just inside the firm.
[25:40] Steve Yeah. And like I said, I think that’s one thing if you can to—from a—from a firm’s perspective, even for the most senior partners that listen to this and that too, is to be thinking about what kind of the culture is that they’re developing. Are they developing—or does that culture breed that, or does that culture breed more of a legal atmosphere where people are kind of working together versus looking over their shoulders at all times?
[26:01] Brent And something else too, let’s bring it back to Suits. Let’s not just talk about attorneys. Paralegals as well. So, we have Rachel, who’s—who’s played by the—the Duchess of Sussex, is that right? I think that’s right. Meghan Markle. Former, uh, Deal or No Deal suitcase holder. Um, and with it too, I mean, I’ve had cases before where paralegals have made such valuable contributions to things they have observed at hearings or things they have seen when I ask a question in voir dire and we’re looking at specific jurors.
And so, again, it’s just making sure that you have a team. And I have one paralegal I’ve gone to several trials with and she knows I’m not—again, I’m not going to take everything she says, but I’m going to listen, I’m going to evaluate it, and if I think it makes sense, heck yes, we’re going to go your way. I’m not going to just say I’m not going to do that because a non-attorney had that idea. I don’t have the ego that says only Brent Turman’s ideas are the best, right? So, it—it’s just figuring out the way that you like to operate with your team.
[26:59] Steve Yeah. I got one last question for you. I’m going to put you on the spot here, and I’m not going to explain it in order to have people go and watch the show now. Do you have a can opener um uh kind of routine that you use before trial?
[27:16] Brent Um, I—I don’t have a can opener-like routine. Um, I’m thankful enough we have a place out in deep east Texas and my wife lets me escape out there for about a week before most trials and I just go through everything. And that is nothing like the can opener, uh, deal at all, but um, that and making sure exercise every day leading up to trial. Those are kind of my routines.
[27:36] Steve Yeah, and those like I said, uh, can go check out the show. Although I will tell you that um, spoiler alert, I don’t—you never really get a true answer uh to that.
[27:45] Brent So much speculation on the online forum and all that, right?
[27:48] Steve Yeah. But it’s—it’s a fun—it’s a fun thing, just a fun thing for the show. All right Brent, well I appreciate you coming on. Um, I know like I said before this is a CLE that you’re—you’re putting on. I know you’re on your kind of speaking tour. Uh, kind of give your plug for that. How can people get a hold of you if they want to have you come speak, if they want you to do it to their law firm? Because like I said, you’re going through ethics—I know can be be boring—but knowing you, I know that you put a good spin on it. So, I want to make sure that people get their ethics in a more fun format.
[28:18] Brent No, I appreciate it. It’s again, um, I’m always—always on LinkedIn. Brent Turman. My firm is Bell Nunnally here in Dallas, Texas. Email is bturman@bellnunnally.com. Hit me up, love to connect with you. Um, bar associations, conferences, in-house presentations, firm—all that. We’ve got a beautiful blast of a slid—slideshow—I call a slideshow “old people” know… a deck, right? I have a deck, slide deck with lots of video clips, and we kind of unpack the ethical issues that come up in the show and whether they uh get it right or get it wrong under the ABA Model Rules. And if we need to tailor it to other states’ rules, we do that from time to time too.
[28:57] Steve Sounds good. Like say, good seeing you again. Number three… uh, there might be a number four, right? Depending on what—what you come up with and what we talk about as far as a new topic. So hopefully looking forward to seeing you again.
[29:06] Brent Sounds like a plan.
[29:08] Steve Yeah. Uh, thanks to everybody for joining. Make sure you go to courtroomsciences.com for all information as it relates to our company—the blogs, podcasts, all those things are up there. And join us for another edition of the Litigation Psychology Podcast, brought to you by Courtroom Sciences.
Be confident in achieving superior litigation outcomes. CSI has the expertise, track record, and capabilities to help you win.
